AUTHOURITIES AND PRINCIPLES ON EVIDENCE

1. EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS:

It is settled law that Evidence of previous proceedings cannot be used as an evidence in a subsequent proceeding.
Except in conditions as stated in Section 46 (1) of the Evidence Act of 2011 and for the purpose of discrediting
the witness during cross-examination. The apex court in the case of Olujinle vs. Adeagbo (1988) NWLR (Pt. 75)
238, (1988) LPELR – 2622(SC) thus

Now a party may in our laws tender Certified True Copy of previous proceedings as part of his
own case in a case between him and his adversary for two purposes. He may tender it to support
a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam. Or he may tender it as a relevant fact under Section 34 of
the evidence act (now section 46). See Mogo Chikwandu v. Nwanegbo Mbamali (1980) 3-4 S.C
31. But apart from these evidence given in previous proceedings by a witness who is called in the
present case can be used to impeach is credit under Section 207 and 209 of the Evidence Act (now
233 and 235) In the last case evidence in the previous proceedings does not become evidence in
the present case if the two testimonies are inconsistent it shows that the witness is not credible.
See Babatunde Jemi Alade v. Lawani Aborishade (1960) 5 F.S.C 17 at P 171 – 173. (Words in
bracket supplied)

- See also Dada v. Bankole (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 26, (2008) LPELR – 90(SC)
Eze v. Ene & Anor. (2017) LPELR – 4191(SC).

2. ADMISSION.

Admission is defined as a statement, oral or documentary, or conduct which suggests any inference as to any fact
in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons and in other circumstances mentioned in this
Act. See Section 20 of the Evidence Act 2011.

It must be noted that statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the
court regards, in the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are
admissions. Also, statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not
admissions unless they were made while the party making them held that character. See Section 21 (1) and (2)
Evidence Act 2011. It is however trite that the statements made by persons who have any proprietary or
pecuniary interest in the subject - matter of the proceedings, and who made the statements in their character of
persons so interested; or persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject
matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the person making
the statements. See Section 21 (3) Evidence Act 2011.

1
Also, statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the
suit are admissions if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to such position or
liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such
position or is subject to such liability. It is further noted that statements made by persons to whom a party to the
suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions. See Section 22 and
23 Evidence Act 2011.

Admission can be formal or informal. It is the law that admission are not necessarily conclusive against the
maker as each and every admission must be carefully evaluated and considered by the court against the particular
circumstances under which it was made See Section 27 Evidence Act 2011. In the case of Nwankwo v. Nwankwo
(1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 394) 153, (1995) LPELR-2110(SC). The Supreme Court defined a FORMAL ADMISSION
as admissions made by a party to a civil proceedings so as to relieve the other party of the necessity of proving
the matters admitted. They are usually contained in a pleading. It is the law that facts admitted in pleading need
not be proved any longer but are taken as established. (Section 123 Evidence Act 2011). Formal admission can
also take the form of clear admissions filed and or made by a party in a civil proceeding or by his counsel in the
course of trial of a civil suit. It is trite that the court even in a formal admission has discretion to require the
admitted fact to be proved by some other evidence other than the admission itself.

- See Section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011.

The Supreme Court however state thus:

Informal admissions on the other hand do not necessarily of strictly speaking bind their maker and may
therefore be explained or contradicted. The weight of an informal admission depends on the
circumstances under which it was made and these circumstances may always be proved to impeach
enhance its credibility. Thus an informal admission, unless it amounts to an estoppel, may be established
by the party against whom it is tendered to be incorrect, untrue or to have been made under a mistake in
law or fact or some compelling or vitiating circumstances. Accordingly, the value of an informal
admission depends on the particular circumstances under which it was made and it is for the trial court
to determine the issue and give due weight to the alleged admission and the explanatory circumstances
thereof.

- See Nii Abossey Okai v. Nii Ayikai II (1946) 12 WACA. 31

Joe Iga and ors v. Ezekiel Amakiri and ors (1976) II SC. 1

It must be noted that if an admission is relied upon as an estoppel, it must be pleaded. See Eze v. Ene & Anor.
(2017) LPELR – 4191(SC).

ADMISSION BY COUNSEL IN THE CAUSE OF A TRIAL.

2
It must be noted that a counsel can while functioning as such, make admissions of fact which could be binding on
his client, particularly where such admission was made for the purpose of dispensing with proof at trial and when
the client failed to retract the admission before judgment.
- See Okesi v. Lawal (1991) LPELR-2447(SC) (P. 17 Paras B-D), (1991) 1 NWLR (170) 1

Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representative in
interest, but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in
interest, except in the following cases -

a. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it when it is of such a nature that, if the
person making it cannot be called as a witness, it would be relevant as between third parties under sections
39 to 45;
b. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the
existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of
mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable; and
c. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an
admission. See Section 24 Evidence Act 2011

It is hereby submitted oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party
proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document
under Part V of the Evidence Act or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question. See Section
25 of the Evidence Act 2011.

In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to
be given, or in circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it
should not be given Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any legal practitioner from
giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under section 192 of the Evidence
Act. See Section 26 Evidence Act 2011.